being arrived there, he was no longer under the civil jurifdiction; that the Emperor could not give him a protection beyond the length kis Imperial authority went, without prejudicing the Catholick-faith or Ecclesiastal jurifdiction; which no fafe-guard granted by secular powers ought to do, especially as the Council had just reasons for the step they had taken; that if he (the Emperor) had promised any thing farther than protecting him in his journey to the Council, he had in so doing gone beyond the extent of his own authority, and engaged for more than he could perform, and therefore was not obliged to keep that promife, especially after doing all that was in his power to fulfil it. These reasons entirely fatisfied the Emperor, who declared to the Commiffioners of the Council, when they addreffed him upon this fubject, That the Council was free in all matters belonging to faith, and might proceed according to the rules against all accused of heresy, and pass judgment upon them after public bearing according as they deserved. Vander Hardt tom. iv. p. 32. Upon this then it was judged proper, as a defence of the Ecclefiaftical jurifdiction, and a precedent in future cases, to emit the above decree; the plain naked sense of which is clear and manifeft to every one who confiders the circumstances in which it was given. But fome Protestants have been pleased to confound the obvious meaning of this decree, in order to find in it a liberty given to Catholicks, to break faith with those whom they esteem hereticks, and to cancel the fealty they owe to a Proteftant government. This indeed is a comment with a witness! But unfortunately for the comment, the exprefs words of the decree are diametrically the reverse; for, it declares the civil magiftrate freed from fuch rash promise as he has made be yond the limits of his authority only, after he has done all in his power to fulfil it. We shall by and by see more fully, what was the true doctrine of this Council about the point in question; at present I must say a word to another of its Ca nons commonly appealed to by Proteftants, to make out their charge; and also, to one of the fourth Council of Lateran used by them for the same purpose: The answer to both these is very short, viz, That they are both spurious, and never were made by either of these Councils. Even Mr Collier himself, our English Proteftant historian, in the fifth book of his first volume of Ecclefiaftic history, acknowledges, That that of Lateran is not found in any copy coeval with the Council, but is transcribed from a later record. In fact it was first produced to light by a German, fome hundred years after the time of the Council, who found it in a manufcript compiled by fomebody, he knew not who. And, as for the other afcribed to the Council of Constance, it never appeared in any printed or authentic collection of the acts of that Council, it is only transcribed by L'Enfant, the Calvinist historian, who says, he got it in a copy found in the Vienna library. Both the one and the other are rejected by all Catholicks as fpurious, except Bellarmine and some few Popish schoolmen, who were imposed upon by that of Lateran; but their opinions thereupon are universally condemned. Here then, Gentlemen, you evidently see, that if the author of the fermon, on the spirit of the gospel, in appealing to refcripts and Councils, to prove his charge against the Papists, has those in view which I have here examined, they are just as much to his purpose as if he had cited the Alcoran or Talmud; and besides these, and these alone, I challenge him, in the face of the whole world, to produce any one approved divine of the Roman-Catholick communion, any authentic rescript or decree of their Councils, that either holds, appproves, or even infinuates the damnable doctrine which he lays to their charge, viz. That it can ever become lawful to lie, betray or murder, even though they should imagine the good of their Church required it. And, if he cannot produce such proof, as I am confidently certain he cannot-Good God! what idea must the difcerning public form of his heart, who is capable to afperse so numerous a body as the Roman-Catholicks are, in so horrid a manner, and to poifon the hearts of his readers with the most envenomed averfion against their innocent fellow creatures, by fuch abominable calumnies? Here then I might reft the whole matter without going further; for furely, in all reason and equity, till the accuser makes good his charge, the accused have a just right to be deemed innocent; and if the other fails in his proof, he muft undoubtedly ftand condemned, in the eyes of every unprejudiced person, of the most infamous calumny and defamation, But, as I am engaged in defence of the truth, and writing to those who glory in being her most devoted votaries, I shall now proceed to show you, from the most convincing positive proofs, that the RomanCatholicks are absolutely innocent of what our author, with fuch fubtile address, lays to their charge: and the principal proof I shall bring for this purpose, are the decrees of this very Council of Constance, which will fet what I advance beyond the reach of contradiction. About the end of the year 1407, John Sanfpeur Duke of Burgundy, having caused affaflinate. Louis of France Duke of Orleans and only brother to the King Charles VI. formed a party for himself and raised a civil war. Among his partizans was one John Petit, a doctor of Paris, who had gained a great reputation for his learning and eloquence. This unhappy man publicly defended the murder of Louis, and among several other shocking propositions which, in his fiery party zeal, he published on this occasion, one of the most obnoxious was as follows: Any tyrant whatsoever may and ought lawfully and meritorioufly to be murdered by any vassal or fubject of his own; even by fecret Snares and subtile flattery or adulation; and that notwithastnding any oath given, or agreement entered into with him ; and without waiting for the fentence or command of any judge whatsoevert." This fcandalous doctrine was foon after condemned by Jean de Montaigu, then Bishop of Paris; but this not being fufficient to stop the evil, it was delated by the famous Gerson to the Council of Constance, who, after again and again hearing the partizans in defence of it, at last pronounced this famous sentence of condemnation upon it. “ The Sacred synod folicitous to combat this error and root it out entirely, declares and defines, that this doctrine is erroneous in faith and in morals; and therefore + Quilibet tyrannus poteft et debet licite et meritorie occidi per quemcunque vassallum fuum vel subditum, etiam per clanculares infidias et fubtiles bladitias vel adulationes, non obstante quocunque, praeftito Juramento feu confaederatione factis cum eo, non expectata fententia vel mandato judicis cujufcunque. : دو rejects and condemns it as heretical, Scandalous, and opening a door to frauds, deceit, lies, treachery and perjury. And, moreover, declares and difcerns, that those, who obstinately affert this most pernicious doctrine, are heretics; and as fuch are to be punished according to the Sacred Canons ‡." Here, Gentlemen, we fee the sense of this Council and confequently of the Roman-Catholick Church in her own words, in her own language; and I the more willingly relate this decree, because it is not only a most authentic proof that the Papists detest and abhor the damnable doctrine with which they are branded by our author, but also clearly demonstrates their innocence in another point, of which they are no less currently accused in this country, viz. Of approving, and thinking it lawful to murder fovereigns when they become hereticks or tyrants. Here that doctrine is solemuly condemned by a General Council of that Church, which all her members look upon as infallible in its decrees concerning faith and manners, and to which they are therefore obliged to adhere as to the decrees of Christ himself. With what face then, can calumny itself dare to accufe them of fuch tenets, after so full, so authentic a condemnation of them? And observe the reafons given by the Council for this condemnation, not only because it is heretical and scandalous in itself to affert it to be lawful to kill even tyrants by private authority; but also, because to affert † Adverfus hunc errorem satagens S. Synodus exfurgere, ipfum que funditus tollere, declarat et definit hujufmodi doctrinam erroneam effe in fide et in moribus, ipsam que tanquam haereticam, scandalofam, et ad fraudes, deceptiones, mendacia, proditiones, perjuria vias dantem, reprobat et condemnat. Declarat infuper et difcernit quod pertinaciter doctrinam hanc perniciofiffimam afferentes funt haeretici et tanquam tales juxta canonicas sanctiones puniendi. Act. Conc. Constant. feff. 15. |